Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are Scientists About To Destroy The World? (LHC vs. 2012)

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Just read an interesting article connecting the possible creation of LHC mini blackholes with the 2012 End O' World stuff & thought I'd share.




The writer notes that if the collider is operated on Sept. 10, and a black hole is created, he estimates a timeline for all of this to happen to take approximately four years, three months and seven days to reach critical mass. This, he wrote, “puts it on December 17, 2012 . . . with an error ratio of approximately 10 days plus or minus.” This means, he said, that the date of the end of everything for everybody could fall on December 21, 2012.


The Mind of James Donahue




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
...because there just aren't enough threads on ATS on this very topic today.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Actually this is interesting because I was doing some math and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Calendar we use my be inaccurate by about 6.5 days or 6.6 days that have been lost overtime. Has anyone noticed that winter seems to be getting earlier every year?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by 12.21.12]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Actually this is interesting because I was doing some math and I came to the conclusion that the Roman Calendar we use my be inaccurate by about 6.5 days or 6.6 days that have been lost overtime. Has anyone noticed that winter seems to be getting earlier every year?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by 12.21.12]


Well it's quite likely that this calendar is off by a few days, ever since it's been reset and the leap year system integrated, it's been very accurate. Like, to a paltry few minutes per year. The year is really very close to 365.25 days long.
(365.2425). The calendar is off by one day every 400 years. that's 216 seconds per year, or about 3 minutes and change each year.

If you notice winter coming sooner each year, your biological clock must be way more accurate than my watch. Frankly, it's probably just the weather. even without man-made effects, the weather isn't the same from year to year, there are many different cycles that affect it. You're not going to notice a change that's like two and a half days per millenium.

Really, though, it doesn't make any difference. Astronomical events aren't tied to a calendar system, we just use the Gregorian calendar out of inertia, and lack of anything significantly more useful. As for dates in actual human events, IMO the date matters more than the actual point in the year that the event occurred. if, four hundred years for now, the anniversary of any even from this decade falls a day earlier than it would now, I really wouldn't care.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Very good research and a star for you mdiinican.
Would you care to bear out your 'research' 12.21.12? The question would probably be more representative if I asked you too link the moronic site you quoted. Surely you didn't do any research and come up with that statement you made in your post did you?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Like I said, just thought it was an interesting article. I just wanted to post the link for others to read. I, like many others, are enjoying reading all we can about this.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
No I don't really care to at this juncture, I still have some more research to do. Right now I just think that it is a possibility. But I will say that the so called 365.25 days a year seems a bit innacurate if even off by a few hundredths, I think the answer is in sacred geometry.






top topics



 
0

log in

join